How to Prove Disability Discrimination After the EEOC Drops Disparate Impact

Disability discrimination charges are climbing, and California employees need to know how the law protects them. According to EEOC data, new discrimination charges rose to 88,531 in fiscal year 2024, a 9.2% increase marking the third consecutive year of growth.
Much of this activity is concentrated in retaliation claims, which now make up nearly half of all filings, while disability and pregnancy-related claims have also drawn increased scrutiny.
For workers in Redondo Beach, California and throughout the state, this trend underscores the importance of understanding how to prove disability discrimination under both federal and California law, and acting before critical deadlines pass.

Three Years of Rising Discrimination Charges: The National Picture

The surge in workplace discrimination filings is not a blip.
EEOC data shows the number of new discrimination charges rose to 88,531 in fiscal year 2024, a 9.2% increase following 81,055 charges in 2023, which was already a significant jump from the lower numbers seen during the pandemic.

This consistent rise in claims allowed the agency to secure nearly $700 million for more than 21,000 individuals in fiscal year 2024, the largest annual recovery reflected in recent EEOC reporting.

At the federal level, the legal landscape is also shifting.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis clarified that Title VII plaintiffs need only show "some harm" related to employment terms rather than a materially significant injury.
While Muldrow addressed Title VII transfer claims, its reasoning has rippled across employment law, potentially lowering the bar for various discrimination claims to advance toward trial. For California workers with disabilities, this national context sits atop an already robust state framework that offers some of the strongest employee protections in the country.

California’s FEHA: Broader Than the ADA

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act provides disability protections that go well beyond federal law in several important ways. FEHA applies to employers with just five or more employees, compared to the ADA’s threshold of 15 or more. Under California Government Code § 12926.1(c), a worker does not need to show a "substantial" limitation on a major life activity to qualify as disabled, only that a condition "limits" a major life activity. This distinction means more conditions qualify for protection in California than under the ADA.

FEHA also protects individuals who are merely perceived as disabled or who have a history of disability. Under Government Code § 12926(o), an employer who takes adverse action based on an incorrect belief that a worker is disabled can still face liability. As the California Court of Appeal held in Wallace v. County of Stanislaus (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 109, employers can be held liable for disability discrimination even without ill will, a good-faith misinterpretation of medical restrictions does not shield the employer. Those exploring their disability discrimination rights should understand these distinctions early.

EEOC Charge document on desk with legal notepad, pen, and camera

When an Employer Ignores a Disability: A Redondo Beach Scenario

Imagine a Redondo Beach office worker diagnosed with a chronic autoimmune condition that causes debilitating fatigue. She informs her supervisor and provides a doctor’s note recommending a modified schedule, starting one hour later and working remotely two days per week. Instead of engaging in a conversation about what adjustments might work, her manager responds by saying the team "can’t afford special treatment." Over the next two months, she receives her first-ever negative performance review and is ultimately terminated for "attendance issues."

Under California law, her employer likely violated multiple obligations. FEHA requires that once an employer is on notice of an employee’s disability, it must take positive steps to accommodate, the employee does not even need to use the word "accommodation." (Prilliman v. United Air Lines, 53 Cal.App.4th 935.) The employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process, combined with a termination closely following the accommodation request, creates exactly the kind of evidence that supports a disability discrimination claim.

How to Prove Disability Discrimination Under California Law

Establishing a disability discrimination claim in California requires meeting specific legal elements, but the framework is designed to protect workers. Under CACI 2540, a plaintiff must show:

  • They suffered from a disability, were regarded as disabled, or had a history of disability
  • They could perform the essential duties of their job with or without reasonable accommodation
  • They were subjected to an adverse employment action (termination, demotion, denial of hire, etc.)
  • Their disability was a "substantial motivating reason" for the employer’s adverse action, not the sole reason, but a significant factor (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203)

When no direct evidence of discriminatory motive exists, California courts apply the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The employee presents a prima facie case, the employer offers a legitimate reason for its action, and the employee then shows that reason was pretextual. Notably, disability discrimination claims are considered "fundamentally different" from other FEHA claims because additional statutory provisions apply and pretext issues arise less frequently (Wallace, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 122).

The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodation

An employer’s duty to accommodate is triggered by knowledge of the disability, not by a formal request. Under CACI 2541 and Gov. Code § 12940(m), the employer bears the burden to take ‘positive steps’ to accommodate a known disability. The duty to initiate a timely, good-faith interactive process is separately governed by Gov. Code § 12940(n) and CACI 2546, which require the employer to engage in that process once it knows of the disability. The employee retains a duty to cooperate by explaining their disability and qualifications (Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 598), but the primary responsibility for providing reasonable accommodation rests with the employer.

The reasonableness of an accommodation is ordinarily an issue for the jury to decide. This is a critical point for plaintiffs: if your employer refused your accommodation and the case proceeds to trial, a jury, not a judge, will typically evaluate whether the requested adjustment was reasonable (Prilliman, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 954). Understanding what evidence proves workplace discrimination can make or break this determination.

Anticipating Employer Defenses

Employers facing disability discrimination claims typically raise two key defenses that plaintiffs must be prepared to counter. Under CACI 2544, an employer may argue the employee posed a direct health or safety risk because of their disability. Under CACI 2545, employers may claim that any accommodation would have caused undue hardship. Both are affirmative defenses, meaning the employer bears the burden of proving them.

Preparation is the plaintiff’s strongest asset. Preserving documentation such as emails, text messages, performance reviews, medical records, and witness statements can undermine these defenses before they gain traction. Courts frequently accept emails as evidence in discrimination lawsuits, making a thorough digital paper trail essential.

Filing Deadlines California Workers Must Know

Time limits apply to disability discrimination claims, and courts interpret deadline exceptions narrowly. Before filing a lawsuit, you must first file a complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD), and you must file within three years of the last discriminatory act. If the CRD investigates, they may attempt to resolve the matter through mediation or issue a right-to-sue notice; once you receive a right-to-sue notice, you have one year to file a lawsuit in civil court.

For federal ADA claims, the timeline is different. An EEOC charge generally must be filed within 300 days of the discriminatory act in California. While certain discovery rules or tolling doctrines may extend deadlines in limited circumstances, workers should not assume any extension applies to their situation. The Disability Rights California fact sheet provides a helpful overview of these protections.

How Does This Impact Me?

Does rising EEOC enforcement activity affect my individual disability discrimination claim?

The increase in EEOC charges and record monetary recoveries reflects a broader environment of workplace accountability. While national trends do not determine the outcome of any individual case, they do signal that regulators and courts are actively addressing disability discrimination. Your claim will be evaluated on its own facts and evidence.

What makes California’s disability protections different from federal law?

California’s FEHA is broader than the ADA in several critical ways. FEHA covers employers with five or more employees (versus 15 under the ADA), does not require a "substantial" limitation to qualify as a disability, and protects individuals who are merely perceived as disabled. FEHA’s accommodation duty is also broader, extending to individuals "regarded as" disabled (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 55).

Do I need to formally request an accommodation to have a valid claim?

No. Under FEHA, your employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation requires only that it know of your disability. You do not need to use specific legal language or submit a formal written request. However, putting accommodation requests in writing creates valuable evidence.

What should I do if I believe I was fired because of my disability?

Document everything immediately. Gather emails, text messages, performance evaluations, medical records, and any communications about your disability or accommodation request. Identify potential witnesses. Then consult with an attorney before filing any administrative complaint, as strategic decisions made early in the process can significantly affect your case.

Under FEHA, you generally have three years from the last discriminatory act to file a complaint with the CRD. After receiving a right-to-sue notice, you have one year to file in civil court. Federal ADA claims have a shorter timeline, typically 300 days to file with the EEOC. Courts interpret tolling exceptions narrowly, so acting promptly is essential. Every case depends on its specific facts, and deadlines may vary based on individual circumstances.

What California Workers Should Do Now

The convergence of rising discrimination claims, evolving federal standards, and California’s already-strong employee protections creates an environment where understanding your rights is more important than ever. If you work in Redondo Beach or anywhere in California and believe your employer has discriminated against you because of a disability, whether by refusing an accommodation, retaliating after you disclosed a medical condition, or terminating you under suspicious circumstances, the legal framework exists to hold that employer accountable. The key is acting early, preserving evidence, and understanding the specific elements your claim requires.

This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes depend on individual facts and circumstances.

If you believe your rights may have been violated, the disability discrimination attorneys at Kent | Pincin can help you evaluate your situation and understand your options. Call (310) 424-4991 to speak with an attorney, or contact us today to schedule a consultation.